Firstly, Jazaka'Allahu kjhairun brother Muhammad for your responses
Were they? Does this not mean that the Jewish religion would not exist today?
Hehe, no, it refers to the Jews who died in the state of rejecting Isa Ibn Maryam (Peace be upon him). Their belief will be rendered useless since they rejected the Messiah.
So sura 2.62 only concerns some Christians? Then why does it say "the Christians"?
The Christians referred here are the Christians who fully adhered to the Injeel and followed the laws of Isa Ibn Maryam. Does that constitute to [all the Christians]? Similiary if I say, [the Muslims who went to Makkah]; does that indicate that I implying the whole Muslim community?
So is sura 2.62 a ruling delivered before the arrival of Muhammad (pbuh)? Surely not?
No, it is not.
as-Suddi said, ‘the verse was revealed with regards to companions of Salmaan al-Faarisee about whom he informed the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that ‘they prayed, fasted, believed in you and bore witness that you had been sent as a Prophet.’ So when Salmaan had finished extolling them the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, "O Salmaan they are from the People of the Fire." This weighed down heavily on Salmaan and then Allaah revealed this verse.
How can a book that is perfect have a cancelled verse? If the verse is cancelled, it no longer applies, true? Why would the book of The Truth from God contain an assertion which, it is admitted later in the book, does not obtain?
The issue of nask [abrogation] has been explained by brother Saheed bin Waheed in an article. This saves me so allow me to cite him:
The English word “abrogation” literally signifies annulment, nullification or cancellation. However, in Islaamic terminology that is used in Glorious Qur’aan, it means expiration of the period of the validity of a practical injunction”. Following are the root letters and words derived from them, with their use in Glorious Qur’aan at four occasion
Readers must know that in Arabic, commonly a noun or a verb has three radical letters. But some nouns and verbs have four or five radical letters. However, many additional letters are added to them in usage.
A radical letter is that which remains intact through all the changes and derivations of the word. An additional letter is that which is subjected to changes in different forms and derivations, as is the case above.
The words, which have three radical letters, are called ath-thulathi (trilateral). Therefore, the occurrence of Naskh نسخ (abrogation) is related only to injunctions that are not eternal and are equal with regard to the possibility of their existence or non-existence.
Abrogation can never be taken to mean that Allaah commanded or prohibited something and then thought better of it and decided to cancel His former command. This is impossible because it involves attributing ignorance to Allaah (Allaah forbid). Also it is not possible for Allaah to command or prohibit something and then without any change in time, subject or conditions to abrogate His injunction since that would lead to attributing imperfection to Allaah. Allaah is FREE of any imperfection whatsoever.
What the Naskh نسخ/Mansookh منسوق signified is that Allaah knows that a certain injunction will remain valid for people up to certain time and then cease to be applicable. When that specific time is reached, a new command is sent which seems to either abrogate or change the former injunction but which, in fact, does nothing but mark the expiration of its validity. Since the former command did not have a specific period of validity attached to it, we take the new injunction as a cancellation of the former.
An employer might command one of his employees to do certain task with the intention of asking him to do some other task after one year, without, however, disclosing his intention to the employee. After the completion of the year, when employer ask the employee to do the other job, the employee might think that employer have changed or amended his orders, even though it is not the case, in fact, employer has not made any changes or amended his plans. Like all other changing phenomena around us, these apparent changes or amendments in the divine injunction are part of Divine Wisdom, whether we know its significance or not.
Therefore, the literal meaning of Naskh نسخ is replacement of one thing by another thing. Technical meaning from Islaamic point of view is “Lifting the Law of Shariah by reasons of Shariah.”
That is why Allaah (SWT) says in Glorious Qur’aan 16:101:
وَإِذَا بَدَّلْنَا آيَةً مَكَانَ آيَةٍ وَاللَّهُ أَعْلَمُ بِمَا يُنَزِّلُ قَالُوا إِنَّمَا أَنْتَ مُفْتَرٍ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ
And when We change a Verse (of the Qur’ân,) in place of another - and Allâh knows best what He sends down - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم are but a Muftari! (Forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.
But both translators of the Qur'an you and I have quoted looked at the verb amano and put it in the present tense. Why would they do this? Perhaps the verb form used has implications of both the past and the present in the original Arabic. The grammars of English and Arabic are certainly different; when you say it's used in the past tense and it's a perfect tense, this is confusing for me, because these are two very different things in English.
Even if the grammar difference could explain some of the confusion, it still doesn't resolve this question: if the verse is generally known as referring to people of past nations, why would the translator(s) choose to put all of the verse in the present tense?
The translators mistranslated it and it demonstrates that the Glorious Qur'aan can never be fully translated. Any translation of the Qur'aan immeditately ceases to be the literal word of Allaah.
I forgot to conjugate when I mentioned [past] and [perfect] tense. What I meant was past perfect tense in the sense that those who adhered to the Scriptures in the past [will be] deemed as believers.
Amano means believed. For example, in Soorat Nisaa, verse 55, Allaah (exalted is He) said:
Faminhum man amana
bihi waminhum man sadda AAanhu wakafa bijahannama saAAeeran
The translators transled it as:
YUSUFALI: Some of them believe
d, and some of them averted their faces from him: And enough is Hell for a burning fire.
PICKTHAL: And of them were (some) who believed
therein and of them were (some) who turned away from it. Hell is sufficient for (their) burning.
SHAKIR: So of them is he who believes
in him, and of them is he who turns away from him, and hell is sufficient to burn.
*note that SHAKIR translated it as [believes] whilst others translated is as believed
With regards to the claim that this verse is abrogated (mansukh), I would disagree since it has not been established amongst the abrogated verses and abrogattion only takes places with respect to laws, not beliefs. Rather this verse may be taken as an example of Takhsees (specification) because its meaning is restricted by other verses in the Qur'an, so that the interpretation of 2:62 is that it refers to either previous nations or those living today amongst Christians and Jews and Sabians who have never heard the true message of Islam.
This verse is indeed mansuukh since the next ayaat abrogates it. The next ayaat testifies that the religion of Islaam abrogated all other religions. Furthermore, the ayaat 2:62 does not refer to those living amongst the People of the Book who have never received the true Message. This is because the ayaat refers to those who held on the original Torah and the Injeel which cannot be found today. Furthermore, those who have never received the true Message are subjected to the ayaat:
… And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning).” [al-Israa’ 17:15].